Talk:Magnitude 7.0 earthquake affects archipelago of Vanuatu

Review of revision 4210228 [Not ready]

Revision 4210228 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: There are multiple verification problems surrounding the magnitude of the quake. Sources say, if I'm understanding correctly, that the magnitude estimate was revised, from 7.3 down to 7.0. Yet this article doesn't mention the smaller number at all; it says the magnitude was 7.3. When reporting the size of an earthquake, mention in the lede where the magnitude figure comes from (e.g. USGS); exactly because estimating quake size can be complicated, it's important for the reader to know where the number comes from. I'm dubious that this number is actually on the Richter scale. The Richter scale isn't much used anymore. Frankly, when I see a news article that says a quake magnitude is on the Richter scale, I think it more likely that they're wrong than that it actually is on the Richter scale. It may help to clarify things to look up (and thus, add to the list of sources) the USGS earthquake site report for the incident in question, as USGS officially does not use Richter. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4210228 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: There are multiple verification problems surrounding the magnitude of the quake. Sources say, if I'm understanding correctly, that the magnitude estimate was revised, from 7.3 down to 7.0. Yet this article doesn't mention the smaller number at all; it says the magnitude was 7.3. When reporting the size of an earthquake, mention in the lede where the magnitude figure comes from (e.g. USGS); exactly because estimating quake size can be complicated, it's important for the reader to know where the number comes from. I'm dubious that this number is actually on the Richter scale. The Richter scale isn't much used anymore. Frankly, when I see a news article that says a quake magnitude is on the Richter scale, I think it more likely that they're wrong than that it actually is on the Richter scale. It may help to clarify things to look up (and thus, add to the list of sources) the USGS earthquake site report for the incident in question, as USGS officially does not use Richter. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4210237 [Not ready]

Revision 4210237 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Our objective here is to provide accurate news; removing the sources that show there's a problem with the magnitude doesn't make the problem go away. Most of the comments in the previous review have not been addressed; see above. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4210237 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Our objective here is to provide accurate news; removing the sources that show there's a problem with the magnitude doesn't make the problem go away. Most of the comments in the previous review have not been addressed; see above. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4210334 [Passed]

Revision 4210334 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This article size is minimal; some reviewers might even disallow it as slightly below length. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4210334 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This article size is minimal; some reviewers might even disallow it as slightly below length. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

A doubt in archiving process

@Pi zero: I see that this article can not be edited now. Well, it has been published recently, which makes me wonder what is the process of archiving a news article.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That was a mistake; I'd only meant to protected it against moving, which is usual for published articles these days. Should be fixed now. --Pi zero (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)